Pros of XSStrike

• More advanced and feature-rich XSS scanning capabilities
• Better detection of DOM-based XSS vulnerabilities
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of XSStrike

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex functionality
• May be overkill for simple XSS testing scenarios
• Requires more system resources to run effectively

Code Comparison

XSStrike:

def dom(response):
    highlighted = []
    sources = r'''document\.(URL|documentURI|URLUnencoded|baseURI|cookie|referrer)|location\.(href|search|hash|pathname)|window\.name|history\.(pushState|replaceState)(local|session)Storage'''
    sinks = r'''eval|evaluate|execCommand|assign|navigate|getResponseHeaderopen|showModalDialog|Function|set(Timeout|Interval|Immediate)|execScript|crypto.generateCRMFRequest|ScriptElement\.(src|text|textContent|innerText)|.*?\.onEventName|document\.(write|writeln)|.*?\.innerHTML|Range\.createContextualFragment|(document|window)\.location'''
    scripts = re.findall(r'(?i)(?s)<script[^>]*>(.*?)</script>', response)
    for script in scripts:
        script = script.split('\n')
        num = 1
        for newLine in script:
            line = newLine
            parts = line.split('var ')
            if len(parts) > 1:
                for part in parts:
                    for source in sources.split('|'):
                        if source in part:
                            highlighted.append('var %s' % part)
                            break
            if 'document.write(' in line or 'document.writeln(' in line:
                highlighted.append(line)
            num += 1
    return highlighted

XAttacker:

function exploit($url,$payload,$post,$p,$xss_vector){
    $ch = curl_init();
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, $url);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_HEADER, 1);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION, 1);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER, 0);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST, 0);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0');
    if($post){
        curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POST, 1);
        curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, $payload);
    }
    $data = curl_exec($ch);
    curl_close($ch);
    if(preg_match("/$xss_vector/i", $data)){
        return true;
    }
    else{
        return false;
    }
}

Pros of w3af

• More comprehensive web application security scanner with a wider range of features
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of w3af

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Requires more system resources to run effectively

Code Comparison

w3af (Python):

def get_long_desc(self):
    return """
    This plugin finds CSRF vulnerabilities.

    To detect this vulnerability the plugin will send several requests to the
    server and analyze the responses.
    """

XAttacker (Perl):

if($ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Username/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Password/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /username/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /password/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /USERNAME/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /PASSWORD/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Senha/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /senha/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Personal/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Usuario/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Clave/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Usager/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /usager/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Sing/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /passe/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /P\/W/ || $ua->get("$site")->content =~ /Admin Password/)

The w3af code snippet shows a more structured and readable approach, while XAttacker's code is more compact but less maintainable.

Pros of sqlmap

• More comprehensive and mature SQL injection testing tool
• Supports a wider range of database management systems
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of sqlmap

• Larger and more complex, potentially harder for beginners to use
• May be considered overkill for simple web application testing
• Requires more system resources due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

XAttacker (PHP):

$url = $argv[1];
$list = file_get_contents($argv[2]);
$link = explode("\n", $list);
foreach($link as $joomla) {
    $resp = get_headers($url.$joomla);

sqlmap (Python):

def checkConnection(suppressOutput=False):
    try:
        socket.create_connection((conf.hostname, conf.port), conf.timeout)
        return True
    except Exception as ex:
        if not suppressOutput:
            errMsg = "connection to %s:%d failed (%s)" % (conf.hostname, conf.port, getSafeExString(ex))

XAttacker is a simpler PHP-based tool focused on web application vulnerability scanning, while sqlmap is a more sophisticated Python-based SQL injection testing tool. XAttacker's code snippet shows basic URL manipulation and HTTP request handling, whereas sqlmap's code demonstrates more advanced network connection checking and error handling. sqlmap offers more features and flexibility but may be more complex for novice users compared to XAttacker's straightforward approach.

Pros of WPScan

• Specifically designed for WordPress security scanning, offering more comprehensive WordPress-specific checks
• Regularly updated with the latest WordPress vulnerabilities and security issues
• Supports both CLI and API usage, providing flexibility for different use cases

Cons of WPScan

• Limited to WordPress sites only, unlike XAttacker which can target multiple platforms
• Requires Ruby installation, which may be less convenient for some users compared to XAttacker's Perl-based approach

Code Comparison

WPScan (Ruby):

def scan_headers
  puts 'Scanning headers...'
  # Header scanning logic
end

XAttacker (Perl):

sub scan_headers {
  print "Scanning headers...\n";
  # Header scanning logic
}

Both tools use similar function structures for scanning, but WPScan's Ruby implementation may be more readable for some developers. XAttacker's Perl code might be more familiar to system administrators and those with experience in legacy systems.

WPScan focuses on depth in WordPress security, while XAttacker offers breadth across multiple platforms. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of the user and the target systems being assessed.

Pros of Nikto

• More comprehensive and mature web server scanner
• Regularly updated with new vulnerabilities and checks
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Nikto

• Slower scanning speed compared to XAttacker
• May generate more false positives

Code Comparison

Nikto (Perl):

sub nikto_headers {
    my ($mark) = @_;
    my %headers;
    foreach my $header (@{ $mark->{headers} }) {
        my ($key, $value) = split(/: /, $header, 2);
        $headers{lc($key)} = $value;
    }
    return %headers;
}

XAttacker (PHP):

function get_contents($url) {
    $ch = curl_init("$url");
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION, 1);
    $exec = curl_exec($ch);
    return $exec;
}

The code snippets show different approaches to handling HTTP requests and headers. Nikto uses Perl and focuses on parsing headers, while XAttacker uses PHP with cURL for making requests.